Stallman vs Ken Brown

An anonymous reader writes "Richard Stallman has become the latest person to speak-out about Ken Brown's "independent" study of Linux, which accuses it of being a Minix/Unix rip-off. Stallman says Brown deliberately confused the Linux kernel vs the GNU project, although I suspect Brown simply didn't know enough to be able to differentiate between the two."

Comments

what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD?

[garcia]

"The actual words I used were quoted correctly, but [author Kenneth Brown] deliberately confuses his terms, like 'Linux.' He confuses the Linux kernel, which I had nothing to do with, and the GNU OS project, which I launched," said Stallman, who characterized such mistakes as "deliberate."M

I believe that Brown is probably far more knowledgeable about the differentiation between the kernel and the GNU project but for the masses it is certainly not something that most people know or care to know.

Perhaps Stallman doesn't realize that it isn't a single person making the confusion it's everyone. The whole GNU/Linux bullshit doesn't help a bit either. Anyone not in the know is going to say, hmm, GNU/Linux, all one thing.

It was certainly FUD but what MS funded "study" isn't?

Re:what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

In defense of TFA, it never once mentions "GNU/Linux". I think it does a fairly decent job of making the point that the GNU system and the Linux kernel are two separate things, without having to explicitly hand-hold the reader.

And about MS funding "studies": the ones that aren't FUD are the ones that we never hear about. I will bet my reputation as an AC that Microsoft has paid independent researchers to conduct a test, and thrown out the results when they didn't get what they wanted. It's not a conspiracy, it's just forum-shopping. In the spirit of bad Slashdot analogies, it's like getting a second opinion from a different doctor.

Re:what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD?

[cbr2702]

Usually arguments about "Linux" vs "GNU/Linux" are nearly pointless, but in this case they matter. Linus wrote most of Linux-the-kernel but not most of Linux-the-operating-system. Brown takes advantage of most people thinking of "Linux" as Linux-the-operating-system to make people think that Linux couldn't possibly have written "Linux" in six months. This is a prime example of equivocation .

Typical Stallman

[Sanity]

Brown's worst crime is confusing "Linux" with "GNU/Linux" ;-)

And another thing...

[Mz6]

Does this whole thing seem to be unfolding like a cheesy daytime soap opera to anyone else besides me?

Is Ken Brown pregnant with Linus' love child?
*Dun Dun Dun*

How does it end? Tune in next week!

Just publish the report already!

[CodeMaster]

I'm just dying to see this so called "academic study" of the history of Linux and the Open Source community get to see the light of day, and get tarnished so badly by everyone.

Mr. Brown is up for the ride of his life (probably the last one as I can't imagine anyone taking him seriously after his paper gets out).

Stop being afraid of reviews and books - the truth will let itself be seen...

(sorry for the karma whoring - this just drives me nuts!)

Pre-Release Copy

[Andrevan]

Cynicism Personified got a hold of a pre-release copy of it, and we posted some similar editorial.

Unbelievable

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe I'm reading comments complaining about Stallman's use of the "GNU/Linux" moniker, when this whole Brown debacle highlights how important it is to differentiate between the GNU system and the Linux kernel.

Typical Slashdot reaction to a post about Stallman without understanding a single thing the man says.

Open source accountabilit

[DuncanE]

One thing that stood out to me in this article:

"Torvalds' recent announcement that, in the future, Linux kernel contributors will have to certify the origins of their code before it can become part of the kernel."

Why?

Why do open source projects have to prove this for each piece of code? Proprietary projects dont have to do this right? But open source projects always have the code available for the world to check over.

Surely Linus should just accept any code and leave it up to any companys who own and IP it may infringe on to chase it up? Thats why we have patents, copyright etc right?

I cant believe that the SCO lawsuit and MS FUD has lead to this... extra work for Linus.... he should be left to concentrate on producing kernel code not dealing IP issues.

Fine, MS can continue to charge as much as they like for their OS, but from now on it should include the source code so we can check the codes "origins".

Boggles The Mind

[bsd4me]

The thing that boggles my mind about all of this is that it seems like Brown thinks or wants to convince others that Linux ``magically'' appeared in a robust form.

I started using Linux in December 1991 with version 0.11. Stable and mature aren't quite the words I would use for that version, especially when you consider that I had to reinstall it about twice a day and it didn't even have login or a proper shutdown command.

Re:Samizdat?

[psavo]

get lost, ignoramus.

samizdat means 'selfpublishing', having nothing to do with communism. It was 'invented' in a communist country, but it's as well employed everywhere where an author can't get published.

Ken Brown is an Intellectual Property Pirate!

[corporatemutantninja]

New flash: Ken Brown didn't invent his book! He may have "written" it but he didn't invent it! It's simply impossible that somebody could invent a new language and a new vocabulary in the 6 months it took him to write that book.

Want proof? In the entire review copy there isn't A SINGLE WORD that hasn't been used by other writers, sometimes writing on the VERY SAME TOPICS that Ken Brown writes on.

By the way, I'm trying to be "Insightful" more than "Funny"....

Astroturf de Tocqueville Institute

[x1048576]

As part of the Tobacco Settlement Agreement Philip Morris (PM) agreed to release millions of documents about their operations. These detail how ADTI was hired by PM to conduct a public relations campaign against the Clinton health plan in 1994. ADTI provided PM with regular progress reports to prove that PM was getting value for its money, so they also let us see how these campaigns are conducted.

The Clinton plan included an increase in taxes on cigarettes from 24c per pack to 99c. Understandably, PM was not in favour of this, so a Philip Morris executive suggested an astroturf campaign, writing to one of his people:

Having just read the Washington Post with a series of provocative articles about Canada cutting taxes, CBO estimating higher costs AND job loss from the Clinton plan and then our old favourite, former president current homebuilder, Jimmy Carter explaining why higher taxes will help tobacco farmers, it occurred to me that we ought to turn a few of our better letter writers loose to blitz the targeted states with letters to the editor about Clinton, Carter and Canada...

If you want some astroturfing done, who you gonna call? The Alexis de Tocqueville Institute:

David N & I think the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute is perfect for this kind of thing. We are working with them on a proposal.

And here is their proposal:

Our three key executives, Cesar Conda, Bruce Bartlett and myself, will run this campaign and we will devote the full energies of our operation and its consultants to this task. We plan to activate our key Advisory Board Members, including Jack Kemp, Robert Kasten, Dick Armey, Michael Boskin and others to mount a public awareness campaign immediately (see enclosed list of Center on Regulation and Economic Growth participants).

As you can see from our press in recent months, we are in a position to deliver. We would like to request $60,000, or $30,000 a month, to implement this program.

And over the next two months ADTI ran a PR campaign against the Clinton plan. For the benefit of PM they documented all their activities. All the details are here.